With respect to the question of Matthew's Christology in Matt
11.25-30, one finds that Wisdom claims are not overwhelmingly persuasive. For
example, in contrast with Sirach, Jesus does not explicitly exhort (potential)
disciples to strive to gain wisdom; rather, he exhorts them to become as
children (cf. Matt 18.1-4). The Matthean Jesus never refers to his disciples as
σόφοι; he uses νήπιοι (Matt 11.25) and similar terms. The context of Matt
11.25-27 militates against the understanding that revelation by God is
here anything other than the revelation of Jesus himself as the Revealer
of God; this is certainly not to be understood in a limited sense that Jesus is
Wisdom Incarnate or a Teacher of Torah. God's will is that "all
things" have been delivered to Jesus (Matt 11.26-27); the invitation, the
call, is to come to Jesus, not to seek Wisdom. Furthermore, if some form of
Wisdom Christology is the motivation behind Matthew's use of Matt 11.28-30, if
Matthew's intention is to heighten the implicit Wisdom Christology of Q and to
make it explicit in this section of the Gospel, then why the unexplained stark
juxtaposition of the humble and lowly one in Matt 11.29 with the exalted
Son of the Father in Matt 11.27? No one has yet proposed an adequate
justification for reading here an allusion to the altogether foreign and
hypothetical concept of humble Wisdom.
Scholars who claim that Wisdom Christology is strongly present in Matt
11.25- 30 do not always address adequately the exclusivity of Jesus' claim to
be the revelation of God; indeed, some rather hurriedly move on to
discipleship, defined in relationship to Wisdom, as "obedience to the Law
as interpreted by Jesus" and "an understanding of the mysteries of
the Kingdom as disclosed by him," or something similar. By contrast, the
invitation from Jesus in Matt 11.25-30 is not primarily to learn a new
interpretation of the Torah: the yoke and rest he promises, and the revelation
of God he alone can grant, go far beyond a definition of the yoke of Wisdom or
Torah. What Matthew's reader is invited to learn from Jesus is not a new school
of thought; rather, one is invited to enter a transforming relationship with
God, to be yoked with Jesus the humble Messiah.
If Wisdom is thought to be a major component of Matthew's Christology
in this text because one assumes that the underlying source of the yoke imagery
in Matthew must be from Wisdom literature, then the sonship imagery of
Jesus in Matt 11.25-30 can be misinterpreted. Since Luke betrays no equivalent
of Matt 11.28-30, it is reasonable to imagine that Matthew has refashioned the
Q Wisdom material (Matt 11.25-27; Luke 10.21-22) so that the identity of Jesus
as Son of God in Matt 11.25-27 is enhanced by his identity as the humble
Davidic Messiah of Matt 11.28-30.
It is unnecessary to resort to Wisdom literature to find a concept of
the yoke of Jesus in Matt 11.29. There is a Second Temple Jewish text
that may indicate other traditions which might have served as background for
Matthew's use of yoke imagery in reference to Jesus. The text in view has the
advantage that it does not oblige one to attempt to reconcile the βασιλεύς
πραϋς of Matt 21.5 with the hypothetical Σοφία πραϋς required by a Wisdom model
of Matt 11.28-30.
(Pss. Sol. 17.29-30) He will judge peoples and nations in the wisdom
of his righteousness ... and he will have Gentile nations serving him under his
yoke (υπο τον ζυγον αυτου), and he will glorify the Lord ... and he
will purge Jerusalem with holiness as it was even from the beginning ...
Psalms of Solomon 17 refers to the yoke of the king, the Son of David
(cf. Pss. Sol. 17.21: 'Ίδέ, κύριε, καί άνάστησον αύτοις τόν βασιλέα αύτων υίον Δαυιδ, Behold, Lord, and establish for them
their king (the) son of David). Nothing in this psalm suggests a connection
with Wisdom or Torah in the interpretation of the yoke. The text does establish
a precedent for conceptualizing the Messiah's yoke: the king to be
raised up, who will have a yoke, is the Son of David, the Lord Messiah (καί βασιλεύς αύτων χριστός κυρίου, Pss. Sol. 17.32). The allusion in Pss.
Sol. 17 to the yoke of the Son of David is compatible with Matthew's Son
of David Christology.
If the yoke of Jesus is read as the yoke of the Davidic
Messiah, then the theological implications of Matt 11.25-30 bear a striking
similarity to those of Matt 21.5. Both texts embrace the paradox of an exalted
figure who is τραυς.
In the only two places in the Gospels where Jesus is described to as τραυς, his identity as Messiah in the face of
rejection is at stake.
A question which has emerged from Jesus' self-description as τραυς(Matt 11.29) is whether this text is meant
to prepare the reader for the portrait of Jesus as βασιλεύς πραϋς in Matt 21.5.
Especially because Jesus is described in these two places (and nowhere else in
the NT) as τραυς, it is possible
that there is a cumulative intra-gospel effect of the word τραυςin Matthew. The contrast Matthew draws
between the expected royal messianic figure and the humble Son of God, who came
to reveal God to the νηπιοι,
can be reinforced if the reader returns to read Matt 11.29 in light of Matt
21.5. But could Matthew have intended this effect?
When the Gospel is read linearly, subsequent passages can help fill
out the author's earlier picture. A linear reading of the three τραυςtexts in Matthew yields these connections:
(a) Matt 5.5 affirms that the τραεις will inherit the earth; (b) Jesus' claim to be τραυς in Matt 11.27-30 can be read back into
Matt 5.5 - Jesus, as τραυς,
is qualified to receive all the blessings of the Beatitudes (his claim that all
things were given to him, that he knows the Father, and that he is τραυς, justifies this kind of reading); and (c)
the Matthean account of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem as the βασιλεύς πραϋς (Matt
21.5) remains paradoxical, yet paradigmatic.
Because the
expectation of a Messiah who is τραυς is found only in Zech 9.9, then the
appearance of this prophetic text as a fulfillment citation reveals that
it has been formative in shaping Matthew's Christology. Therefore, one can
defend reading Matt 21.5 back into Matt 11.29 (and perhaps even into Matt
5.5).68 By this means, the impact of Zech 9.9 - in its juxtaposition of the
exalted, yet humble, messianic figure- upon Matthew's τραυς texts,
and upon Matthew's Christology, is substantial. Especially in the context of
conflict over the identity of Jesus as the Messianic king, the quality Matthew
insists upon is that Jesus is Βασιλεύς πραϋς. (Charlene McAfee Moss, The Zechariah Tradition and the Gospel of
Matthew [Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
156; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008], 76-79)
